Typeset Proof Review Checklist Examples of Chicago Manual of Style

Typeset Proof Review Checklist We recommend that you print the typeset proof and proofread it slowly and with great care. We also suggest that you request a colleague to proofread your paper, as they may notice errors that you miss due to your familiarity with the content. Remember to check your typeset proof for: -

Completeness: inclusion of all text, figures, illustrations, and tables Correct title and subtitle Correct authorship and order of authors Current affiliation details Heading levels Position and size of illustrations and figures Ensuring that captions of illustrations and figures match Position of tables Presentation of quotes Presentation of equations Inclusion of acknowledgements Typesetting or file conversion errors Ensure use of Chicago Manual of Style citations; we recommend the authordate citations and the end-of-article reference list

Examples of Chicago Manual of Style References In-Text Citation: (Pollan 2006, 99-100) - when you want to reference specific pages in the text (Pollan 2006, 99-100; Weinstein 2009) - when a second text is being referenced and you don’t want to reference specific pages within the second text. Listing in End-of-Article Reference List: Book: Pollan, Michael. 2006. The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. New York: Penguin. Article: Weinstein, Joshua I. 2009. “The Market in Plato’s Republic.” Classical Philology 104:439–58. More information on Chicago Manual of Style can be found at http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html We prefer author-date citations (the second tab on this page) to notes and bibliography.

Journal Standard Style Order of the Paper: 1. Cover page. 2. Copyright/imprint page. 3. Paper: title/subtitle; author names with affiliation; abstract; keywords; body of paper; acknowledgement (if applicable); reference list; appendix (if any); and about the author section. Journal Standard Style: 

          

Paper title/subtitle and all headings appear in Title Case except the first header and Reference section, whereby only definite and indefinite articles (e.g. ‘the’ and ‘a’), conjunctions (e.g. ‘and’), and prepositions (e.g. ‘in’, ‘of’ etc.) appear in lower case. No italics in titles and subtitles of the paper. Affiliation of the author will include only the name of the author, university or organization name, and country. Honorifics are not included. Abstract will appear in italics as a single paragraph. The keyword list should appear in italics and center aligned. Avoid footnotes if at all possible. The first paragraph of the paper will appear in floating style—the first letter will appear in capital case and bold. Hyphenation cannot be altered. No underline will be included. Figure captions are centered and italicized below the figure. The figure number and caption appear on the same line. Table titles appear above the table, center aligned, in bold. The table number and table title appear on the same line. About the Author section: Honorifics will be reflected in this section. Contact details, such as email addresses, will not be included.

Multi-Authored Papers In the case of multi-authored papers, authors are advised to collaborate when checking the typeset proof. One author should be nominated to either accept or submit corrections on behalf of all of the authors of the paper. We can only accept one set of revisions, or one acceptance of the typeset proof, from the nominated author. Once an author approves the typeset proof, further revisions may not be requested.

Replying to Us After you review the typeset proof that follows, you need to click on the “Author Verify Typeset Proof” button (available at the link where you downloaded the typeset proof). You will then need to select the appropriate option to proceed. Option 1: Accept Typeset Proof To be selected when your paper is ready for publication - Please thoroughly check the typeset proof before accepting it. You will not have further opportunities to make additional changes after the typeset proof has been accepted. - Once you have accepted the typeset proof of your paper, it will be ready to be published. You will be notified when your paper has been published and given instructions on how to access the published version. Option 2: Request Resubmission of Typeset Proof To be selected when your paper requires corrections, - Please thoroughly check the typeset proof - The typesetter will receive notification of your requested corrections. Once the corrections have been completed, you will be notified of the availability of a revised typeset proof for your approval.

Documenting your Corrections (Option 2) Changes to the Abstract If you wish to make changes to the abstract of your paper, please provide the revised abstract either as a Word document (if there are also changes to the text), or by entering it in the text box provided when you select Option 2. Additional Authors If you need to add a co-author, we require the following information for each additional author: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Name of the co-author Affiliation details Email address of the co-author (Mandatory) Short Biography (limit of 30 words) Long Biography (limit of 200 words, one paragraph only)

Corrections to Text If you have changes to the text, please complete these in the Word version of your paper, which is available at the link where you downloaded this PDF (or an existing word version). You can then upload the revised document for typesetting by selecting Option 2. Corrections to Style You will need to clearly indicate all corrections in the following manner: Page Number - paragraph number - line number - correction to be made e.g.: Page 4 - last paragraph, line 4, please put a comma after Tom in the sentence ‘Mary, Tom, Jane and her friends...’ The page number is the actual page of the PDF. As the paper has not been paginated yet, numbers do not appear on the pages. Submitting Corrections Click the ‘Author Verify Typeset Proof’ button (available at the link you downloaded the typeset proof from) and select Option 2. Option 2: Request Resubmission of Typeset Proof -

Please upload the corrected Word document, or add your corrections in the text box provided. Note that you can only upload one document, and this document must contain all of the corrections (and those of your co-authors, if applicable). Note that your paper will be limited to two rounds of corrections during the typesetting process; be sure to include any and all corrections you may have in one request.

The typesetter will receive notification of your requested corrections. Once the corrections have been completed, you will be notified of the availability of a revised typeset proof for your approval.

Bibliographical Details Full bibliographical details (issue and page numbers) will not be available until final publication of your paper. Once your paper has been published, you will be able to obtain these details. We will notify you as soon as your paper is published.

VOLUME 19 2013

The International Journal of

Science, Mathematics, and Technology Learning __________________________________________________________________________

The Development of Bangladeshi Science Teachers' Conceptions of Nature of Science ZIAUL ABEDIN FORHAD AND KHAJORNSAK BUARAPHAN

thelearner.com

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY LEARNING http://thelearner.com/ First published in 2013 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing University of Illinois Research Park 2001 South First St, Suite 202 Champaign, IL 61820 USA www.CommonGroundPublishing.com ISSN: 2327-7971 © 2013 (individual papers), the author(s) © 2013 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher. For permissions and other inquiries, please contact . The International Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Learning is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. Typeset in CGScholar. http://www.commongroundpublishing.com/software/

The Development of Bangladeshi Science Teachers' Conceptions of Nature of Science Ziaul Abedin Forhad, Insitute for Innovative Learning, Mahidol University, Thailand Khajornsak Buaraphan, Insitute for Innovative Learning, Mahidol University, Thailand Abstract: Nature of science (NOS) is widely regarded as one important strand for students. The major responsibility of science teachers is to develop an adequate informed understanding about NOS in the students they teach. To do that, basically, science teachers themselves must possess an adequate informed understanding about NOS. The purposes of this study are: a) to explore Bangladeshi science teachers’ conceptions of NOS and b) to develop their NOS conceptions. The study revealed that a significant number of science teachers in Bangladesh held uninformed conceptions of NOS. However, the workshop designed for this study could help the participating science teachers develop more informed conceptions of NOS. The educational context of Bangladesh potentially affected science teachers’ awareness of the importance of NOS teaching and learning, and also their conceptions of NOS. Keywords: Nature of Science, Science Teacher, Bangladesh

Introduction

F

or several decades, science educators, science education institutes, educational standardizing committees, and researchers have claimed and emphasized that an ultimate goal of science education is to cultivate “scientifically literate citizens” (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 1993; National Research Council [NRC], 1996) with one of the common characteristics of a scientifically literate citizen is having an adequate understanding of Nature of Science (NOS). Helping students attain an understanding of NOS, therefore, is regarded as one major goal of science education (Tao, 2003). In order to help students attain an adequate understanding of NOS, science teachers themselves must have adequate understanding of NOS. Without sufficient internalizing of informed views of NOS, science teachers cannot effectively address NOS in the classroom (AbdEl-Khalick & Lederman, 2000). Adequate understanding of NOS allows science teachers to model appropriate science-related behaviors and attitudes (Murcia & Schibeci, 1999). Accordingly, proper understanding of NOS is needed for all science teachers (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Haider, 1999; Lederman, 1999; Tairab, 2001). However, several studies reveal that science teachers are unclear about NOS, for example, in the Asian context, Buraphan (2009) and Buaraphan and Sung-ong (2009) revealed that many Thai science teachers have varying definitions of NOS. In the Bangladeshi context, similarly, Sarkar (2010) found that a majority of Bangladeshi science teachers have uninformed and vague notions of NOS. Helping science teachers attain adequate understanding of NOS is consequently regarded as a major task for science educators. A number of NOS research (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Akerson, Abd-El-Khalick, & Lederman, 2000; Bartholomew, Osborne, & Ratcliffe, 2004; Cakiroglu, Dogan, Bilican, Cavus, & Arslan, 2009; Schwartz & Lederman, 2002) suggested that effective teaching about NOS must be conducted in an explicit-reflective manner, i.e., teachers make aspects of NOS an explicit part of classroom discourse and provide learners opportunities to reflect upon and explain their ideas about NOS. Lederman et al. (2001) emphasized that, in the explicit approach, NOS understanding must be intentionally planned for, taught, and assessed. Hanuscin et al. (2010) additionally elaborated four overarching criteria of explicit approach in teaching about NOS: a) teachers plan to teach a particular aspect of NOS; b) students are made aware of the target aspect of NOS; c) student are provided an opportunity to discuss and/or reflect on their

The International Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Learning Volume 19, 2013, thelearner.com, ISSN 2327-7971 © Common Ground, Ziaul Abedin Forhad, Khajornsak Buaraphan, All Rights Reserved Permissions: [email protected]

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS AND TECHNOLOGY LEARNING

ideas about the target aspect of NOS; and d) teachers elicit students’ ideas about NOS before, during, or at the conclusion of the activity. In this study, the researchers aim to explore the Bangladeshi science teachers’ understanding of NOS and develop their NOS knowledge by using an explicit-reflective NOS workshop. The ultimate goal is to enhance the Bangladeshi science teachers’ understanding of NOS and ability to teach about NOS, which will cultivate scientifically literate citizens.

Literature Review The literature review is divided into four main parts: definition of NOS, importance of NOS, science teachers’ understanding of NOS, and development of science teachers’ conceptions of NOS.

Definition of NOS The NOS construct is diverse and fuzzy; there is no single, universal definition of NOS. As Schwartz and Lederman (2002) stated, “there is not a single NOS that fully describes all scientific knowledge and enterprises” (p. 207). The difficulty to define NOS may have arisen from its complex construct, which merges several fields together. Lederman (1992) mentioned that NOS encompasses various fields, especially epistemology, which involves how scientific knowledge is generated, and the character of science. In addition, McComas, Clough, and Almazroa (1998) stated that: NOS is a fertile hybrid arena, which blends aspects of various social studies of science including the history, sociology, and philosophy of science combined with research from the cognitive sciences such as psychology into a rich description of what science is, how it works, how scientists operate as a social group and how society itself both directs and reacts to scientific endeavors. (p. 4) From the analysis and synthesis of eight international science standard documents, McComas, Almazroa, and Clough (1998) summarized 14 common aspects of NOS: Scientific Knowledge is long lasting but tentative as well; Scientific knowledge depends mostly but not completely on empirical, “argument”, logic and “skepticism”; No absolute solutions for scientific problem solving and no specific “step-by-step” ways in scientific methods; Science tries to explain the “natural phenomenon”; Laws and theory have their own identity and theory will not transform to a law in spite of having further “evidence”; Science is the “contribution” of all cultural people around the world. Every new invention should be open to everyone and “clearly reported”. The works of scientist should be reproducible and they should have an “accurate record” of it. Observations are according to theory. One of the most important characteristics of scientists is their creativeness or originativeness. The history of science contains “evolutionary and revolutionary” features. Science is not apart from society and cultures but has relationship with them. Science and technology are co-related and influenced by each other; society and historical background directly influence “scientific ideas”. Buaraphan (2009) categorized science teachers’ concepts of NOS into four major groups: scientific knowledge, scientific method, scientists’ work, and scientific enterprise.

Scientific Knowledge: Hypotheses, Theories and Laws In various studies, a majority of science teachers had naïve ideas regarding a hierarchical relationship between hypotheses, theories, and laws (Abd-El-Khalick & BouJaoude, 1997; Dogan & Abd-El-Khalick, 2008; Haidar, 1999; Rubba & Harkness, 1993). They believed that when a hypothesis is proven correct, it becomes a theory. After a theory has been proven true many times by different people and has been around for a long time, it becomes a law. The availability or accumulation of supporting evidence was also linked with the status of the truth or correctness

FORHAD AND BUARAPHAN: BANGLADESHI SCIENCE TEACHERS' CONCEPTIONS OF SCIENCE

of hypotheses, theories, and laws (Dogan & Abd-El-Khalick, 2008). The conception that these constructs are different types of ideas was not grasped (Abd-El-Khalick & BouJaoude, 1997). In addition, 29.6% of the inservice science teachers confused a scientific theory with a scientific fact. They believed that theories were facts before being proven by experiment (Tairab, 2001, p. 246).

Scientific Knowledge: Tentativeness of Science Regarding the status of scientific knowledge, inservice science teachers can be categorized into two groups using a static-dynamic split. The science teachers in the first group view science as stable or having a static status, while those in the second group view science as tentative or having a dynamic status. In the static-science group, for example, 24.1% of science teachers claimed that science is a collection of facts or a body of knowledge that explains the world (Tairab, 2001). Scientific knowledge, therefore, was regarded as static (Behnke, 1961). The major purpose of scientific research is, therefore, to collect as much data as possible (Craven, Hand, & Prain, 2002; Tairab, 2001). In the dynamic-science group, the science teachers generally believed in the tentativeness of scientific knowledge (Dogan & Abd-El-Khalick, 2008). For example, four of five primary teachers in Lunn’s study (2002) believed that science is constantly evolving to adequately give a full world-view, especially some mysterious patterns in nature. Theories, for example, can be renewed and changed both in the light of new knowledge and new facts.

Scientific Knowledge: Cumulative Knowledge Scientific knowledge as cumulative knowledge was the naïve conception being linked to their status of truth or correctness (Dogan & Abd-El-Khalick, 2008). Most inservice science teachers strongly believed that scientific knowledge is cumulative and its advancement depends heavily on the accumulation of facts or increasing observation rather than changes in theory (Brickhouse, 1990; Haidar, 1999).

Scientific Knowledge: Scientific Model ‘Scientific models are copies of reality’ is a popular uninformed conception of the NOS for most science teachers (Dogan & Abd-El-Khalick, 2008). Scientific models, in their view, are copies of reality rather than human inventions (Abd-El-Khalick & BouJaoude, 1997) because scientists say they are true or because much scientific observations and/or research have shown them to be true (Dogan & Abd-El-Khalick, 2008). However, many teachers, especially those who hold constructivist views, can articulate the role of scientific models as scientists’ best ideas or educated guesses to represent reality rather than exact replicas of experienced phenomena (Haidar, 1999).

Scientific Method: Universal Step-wise Method The scientific method is commonly perceived by science teachers as a universal step-wise method (Abd-El-Khalick & BouJaoude, 1997; Dogan & Abd-El-Khalick, 2008; Haidar, 1999). This can be attributed to the science curriculum that presents the scientific method as a sequence of steps that all students have to followed exactly in order to reach certain results (Haidar, 1999) or unambiguous scientific truth (Brickhouse, 1990). For a majority of science teachers, good scientists were, therefore, those who follow a recipe—the steps of the scientific method—in their investigations (Abd-El-Khalick & BouJaoude, 1997; Haidar, 1999).


Scientists’ Work: Theory-laden Observation and Subjectivity Some of the most common bipolar views of the NOS are subjectivity and objectivity, theoryladen and theory-free, or value-laden and value-free. For most science teachers, subjectivity plays a major role in the development of scientific ideas (Abd-El-Khalick & BouJaoude, 1997) because scientists’ worldviews or paradigms can affect their scientific thinking and decisionmaking (Lunn, 2002, p. 664). However, many science teachers strongly believed in objectivity in science, which is firmly based upon theory-free or value-free observation. For example, nearly half of science teachers held the naïve conception that observation is not influenced by the theories that scientists hold (Brickhouse, 1990; Dogan & Abd-El-Khalick, 2008; Haidar, 1999). Most science teachers (71%) adopted the idealistic view that the scientists’ interpretation was objective and far from their frames of reference (Abd-El-Khalick & BouJaoude, 1997; Rampal, 1992).

Scientists’ Work: Creativity and Imagination in Science The role of creativity and imagination in the construction of scientific ideas is overlooked by most science teachers because they believe that scientists must follow a fixed-step scientific method (Abd-El-Khalick & BouJaoude, 1997). For example, there were less than 10% of science teachers in Rampal’s study (1992) who recognized the importance of creativity in scientists’ work. In this case, ‘creativity seems to be stereotypically dissociated from perceived scientific qualities’ (p. 424).

Scientific Enterprise: Social and Cultural Influences on Science The social and cultural influences on the scientific enterprise are explicitly recognised by most science teachers (Brush, 1989). For example, 51% and 42.3%, respectively, of science teachers in Haidar (1999) and Rubba and Harkness (1993) indicated that a scientist is influenced by social factors. In addition, 79.6% of science teachers in Tairab’s study (2001) expressed the view that science and technology affect society and in turn society affects science and technology. However, only 10% and 26%, respectively, of science teachers believed that while collecting or presenting information a scientist is influenced by social biases and governmental pressure. They regarded the authoritative image of the scientist as accurate (Rampal, 1992).

Scientific Enterprise: Interaction between Science and Technology It is, perhaps, an easy task for in service science teachers to recognise the interaction between science and technology in such cases as science is the knowledge base for technology, and technology influences science advancement (Rubba & Harkness, 1993). However, distinguishing between science and technology is probably a very difficult task for them (Rubba & Harkness, 1993). The problem is that ‘technology is applied science’ in their commonplace idea about the relationship between science and technology (Tairab, 2001).

Importance of NOS Understanding of NOS is regarded as one essential characteristic of a scientifically literate person (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996). Science teachers are, therefore, responsible for developing an adequate understanding of NOS in all students they teach (Buaraphan & Sung-ong, 2009). To do that, first of all, science teachers must possess a clear understanding of NOS, which they intend students to attain because they cannot teach what they do not understand (Lederman, 1992). Without sufficient internalizing of informed views of NOS, science teachers cannot effectively address NOS in the classroom ( Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000). Adequate understanding of NOS allows science teachers to model appropriate science-related behaviors and attitudes


(Murcia & Schibeci, 1999). Accordingly, proper understanding of NOS is needed for all science teachers (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Haider, 1999; Lederman, 1999; Tairab, 2001)

Science Teachers’ Conceptions of NOS Many studies presented that science teachers have inadequate understanding of NOS and possess several alternative conceptions of NOS. Tairab (2001) revealed that science teachers had mixed views about science. Haider (1999) also found that Emirates teachers' had mixed view of NOS and NOS understanding were historically and religiously influenced. Supported by Dogan and Abd-El-Khalik (2008), Turkish science teachers' conceptions of NOS were interrelated with their regional, social, cultural as well as educational background. (Dogan & Abd-El-Khalick, 2008; 1991) Gallagher (1991) found out that almost all of his participants possessed “unsettling” views of NOS. In addition, Moss (2001) found that NOS concepts were resisted even though the participating teachers attended specific science courses. In the Asian context, Buaraphan (2009) revealed that a majority of science teachers in Thailand held uninformed notions of NOS regarding eight aspects: a) scientific theories can be developed to become laws; b) accumulation of evidence makes scientific knowledge more stable; c) scientists are open-minded without any biases; d) scientific theories are less secure than laws; e) the scientific method is a fixed step-by-step process; f) science and the scientific method can answer all questions; g) a scientific model (e.g., atomic models) expresses a copy of reality; and h) science and technology are identical. In the Bangladeshi context, Sarkar (2010) found that a majority of Bangladeshi science teachers have uniformed and vague ideas about NOS.

Development of Science Teachers’ Conceptions of NOS Driver et al. (1996) suggested NOS should not be regarded as an add-on of science content; rather, it should be tightly linked to the content taught. In addition, a number of NOS research (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Akerson, Abd-El-Khalick, & Lederman, 2000; Bartholomew, Osborne, & Ratcliffe, 2004; Cakiroglu, Dogan, Bilican, Cavus, & Arslan, 2009; Schwartz & Lederman, 2002) suggested that effective teaching about NOS must be conducted in an explicit-reflective manner, i.e., teachers make aspects of NOS an explicit part of classroom discourse and provide learners opportunities to reflect upon and explain their ideas about NOS. Schwartz and Lederman (2002) described the explicit-reflective approach for teaching about NOS as: An explicit instructional approach intentionally draws learners’ attentions to relevant aspects of NOS thorough instruction, discussion, and questioning that makes NOS visible in classroom instruction. …The reflective component involves the application of these tactics in the context of activities, investigations, and historical examples used in daily science instruction. Thus an explicit/reflective approach involves purposeful instruction of NOS through discussion, guided reflection, and specific questioning in the context of classroom science activities. (p. 207) [emphases in original] Lederman, Schwartz, Abd-El-Khalick, and Bell (2001) emphasized that, in the explicit approach, NOS understanding must be intentionally planned for, taught, and assessed. Hanuscin et al. (2010) additionally elaborated four overarching criteria of explicit approach in teaching about NOS: a) teachers plan to teach a particular aspect of NOS; b) students are made aware of the target aspect of NOS; c) student are provided an opportunity to discuss and/or reflect on their ideas about the target aspect of NOS; and d) teachers elicit students’ ideas about NOS before, during, or at the conclusion of the activity. However, there is no significant study conducted till now on the development of the Bangladeshi science teachers’ ideas of NOS. This study aims to a) explore Bangladeshi science teacher’ conceptions of NOS; and b) to explore the effect of the explicit-reflective NOS workshop on the Bangladeshi science teacher’ development of NOS conceptions.


Research Questions Two questions guiding this study are: a) what are the Bangladeshi science teachers’ conceptions of NOS? and b) what are the effects of the explicit-reflective NOS workshop on the Bangladeshi science teachers’ development of NOS conceptions?

The Context of Study Bangladesh became independent in 1971 and after that it has had separate educational administrative and managing body. There are three education systems in Bangladesh: a) general education, b) madrasa (religious) education, and c) technical-vocational education and professional education. Each of these is divided into five levels: 1) primary level (compulsory) (years 1-5), 2) junior level (years 6-8), 3) secondary level (years 9-10), 4) higher secondary level (years 11-12), and 5) tertiary level (university). The National Curriculum and Textbook Board (NCTB) develops the curriculum as well as produces the standard textbooks and assessment papers. The Ministry of Education (MOE) is responsible for policy making. There are 12 teachers training colleges and 48 primary teachers training institutes in Bangladesh that aim to produce qualified primary and secondary leveled teachers. In order to be a teacher in Bangladesh, one has to have a very good subject background as well as minimum of educational degree (e.g., Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.)). NOS is normally included in science curriculum worldwide. Surprisingly, there is no learning strand related to NOS in the Bangladesh science curriculum. In addition, there are very few studies related to NOS in the context of Bangladesh. Recently, some science educators who are mostly perusing higher education abroad are doing research focusing on NOS.

Method The study is divided into two main phases. The first phase is a survey research, which aims to explore science teachers’ conceptions of NOS. In this phase, the Myths of Science Questionnaire (MOSQ) (Buaraphan & Sung-ong, 2009) is used to explore are the Bangladeshi science teachers’ conceptions of NOS. MOSQ consists of 14 items clustered into four main aspects of NOS, i.e., a) scientific knowledge, b) scientific inquiry c) scientists’ works and d) scientific enterprise as Figure 1.


Figure 1: Myths of Science Questionnaire (MOSQ) Directions: Please select the choice that best reflects your opinion and provide an explanation supporting your selection. Statement 1. Hypotheses are developed to become theories only. 2. Scientific theories are less secure than laws. 3. Scientific theories can be developed to become laws. 4. Scientific knowledge cannot be changed. 5. The scientific method is a fixed step-bystep process. 6. Science and the scientific method can answer all questions. 7. Scientific knowledge comes from experiments only. 8. Accumulation of evidence makes scientific knowledge more stable. 9. A scientific model (e.g., the atomic model) expresses a copy of reality. 10. Scientists do not use creativity and imagination in developing scientific knowledge. 11. Scientists are open-minded without any biases. 12. Science and technology are identical.

Opinion  Agree  Uncertain  Disagree ………………….………………………………..  Agree  Uncertain  Disagree ………………….………………………………..  Agree  Uncertain  Disagree ………………….………………………………..  Agree  Uncertain  Disagree ………………….………………………………..  Agree  Uncertain  Disagree ………………….………………………………..  Agree  Uncertain  Disagree ………………….………………………………..  Agree  Uncertain  Disagree ………………….………………………………..  Agree  Uncertain  Disagree ………………….………………………………..  Agree  Uncertain  Disagree ………………….………………………………..  Agree  Uncertain  Disagree ………………….………………………………..  Agree  Uncertain  Disagree ………………….………………………………..  Agree  Uncertain  Disagree ………………….………………………………..  Agree  Uncertain  Disagree ………………….………………………………..  Agree  Uncertain  Disagree ………………….………………………………..

13. Scientific enterprise is an individual enterprise. 14. Society, politics, and culture do not affect the development of scientific knowledge. Source: Buaraphan and Sung-ong (2009)

The back translation approach was employed with five experts to check the accuracy of translation from the English language to the Bangladeshi language (Bengali). The unclear language was revised for more clarification. However, the questionnaire distributed to the respondents includes both Bengali (translated) and English (original). The respondents were 110 science teachers in the division of Dhaka the capital city as well as the central region of Bangladesh. Ninety-two participants (83.6%) were male and eighteen participants (16.4%) were female. Fifty-one participants (46.4%) teach in a lower-secondary level and fifty nine participants (53.6%) teach in a higher-secondary level. The subjects they teach are mathematics (30%), physics (21.8%), chemistry (20.0%), biology (8.2%) and others (e.g. computer). All respondents were asked to voluntarily participate in the second phase of this study. 16 of the volunteers were science teachers (15 male and 1 female). Seven and nine participants taught in the lower-secondary and higher-secondary levels, respectively. There were 5, 3, 2, 3 and 3 participants who taught mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and others (e.g. computer). These participants were asked to complete the MOSQ before and after participated in


“An Explicit-Reflective NOS Workshop”. The activities in the Explicit-Reflective NOS Workshop are as presented in Figure 2. Figure 2: Explicit-Reflective NOS Workshop Name of activity Related NOS aspects Tricky Tracks Observation vs. inferences Scientists’ creativity and imaginations Tentativeness of science NOS discussion and reflection Young or Old Subjectivity Influences of social and cultural contexts on NOS NOS discussion and reflection Black Box Scientific knowledge is a part of human imagination “Mysterious Tube” Scientific model and hypotheses NOS discussion and reflection Individual Interview All Source: See details of activities from McComas (Ed.), The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Activity 1

2

3

4

The first author of this article conducted the Explicit-Reflective NOS Workshop. Teaching and learning according to activities in the workshop were video-tape recorded. The participants were semi-structured interviewed after participating in the Explicit-Reflective NOS Workshop. Each interview took approximately 30 min. The sample questions are: How do you feel about the activities in the workshop? Did the workshop help you improve your understanding about NOS? In what aspect? All related documents were also collected. The participants’ responses about NOS were coded and categorized by using a constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

Findings In this chapter, the findings from this study are presented in two major phases; (a) The science teachers’ conceptions of NOS, and (b) the science teachers’ development of NOS conceptions after participated in the workshop.

Phase I: Science Teachers’ Conceptions of NOS The overall findings about the participants’ conceptions of NOS are presented as Table 1.


Table 1: Science teachers’ conceptions of NOS Item Response Agree Uncertain (Uninformed)

Disagree (informed)

Item 1: Hypotheses are developed to become theory only. Item 2: Scientific theories are less secured than scientific law. Item 3: Scientific theories can be developed to scientific law. Item 4: Scientific knowledge can't be changed.

64 (58.2%)

19 (17.3%)

27 (24.5%)

79 (71.8%)

19 (17.3%)

12 (10.9%)

75 (68.2%)

21 (19.1%)

14 (12.7%)

36 (32.7%)

16 (14.5%)

58 (52.7%)

Item 5: Scientific method is a specific thorough (step-by step) process.

79 (71.8%)

20 (18.2%)

11 (10.0%)

Item 6: Science and scientific method can answer all questions.

39 (35.5%)

25 (22.7%)

46 (41.8%)

Item 7: Scientific knowledge comes from experiments only.

70 (63.6%)

19 (17.3%)

21 (19.1%)

Item 8: Accumulation of evidence makes scientific knowledge more stable. Item 9: A scientific model (e.g. Atomic model) expresses the copy of reality. Item10: Scientists don't use creativity and imagination to develop Scientific knowledge. Item11: Scientists are open minded and neutral. Item12: Science and technology are exactly similar. Item13: Scientific endeavor is an individual endeavor.

86 (78.2%)

11 (10.0%)

13 (11.8%)

59 (53.6%) 54 (49.1%)

38 (34.5%) 20 (18.2%)

13 (11.8%) 36 (32.7%)

69 (62.7%)

17 (15.5%)

24 (21.8%)

46 (41.8%)

24 (21.8%)

40 (36.4%)

74 (67.3%)

22 (20.0%)

14 (12.7%)

Item14: Society, politics and culture don't influence on scientific development.

45 (40.9%)

7 (6.4%)

58 (52.7%)

From Table 1, in Item 1 only about one-fourth of the participants held informed conceptions about the relationship between hypotheses and theories and most of them had uninformed conceptions of NOS that hypotheses are developed to become theories only. According to Item 2, nearly three quarters of the participants indicated uninformed conceptions about the stability and vulnerability of scientific theories and scientific laws. They believed in a hierarchical structure between theories and laws, that is, scientific theories are less secured than laws. In Item 3, in similar to Item 2, three-forth of the participants reflected the uninformed knowledge about the hierarchical structure between theories and laws. They believed that scientific laws are superior to theories, so that scientific theories must be developed to become laws. In Item 4, more than a half of the participants showed informed knowledge about the tentativeness of scientific knowledge. They agreed that scientific knowledge can be changed. Surprisingly, only one-tenth of the participants held informed conceptions about scientific method in Item 5. Almost all of them had uninformed conceptions of NOS, that is, scientific method is a specific step-by-step process.


Even though nearly a half of the participants indicated informed conceptions in Item 6 which shows that science and scientific method cannot answer all questions, many of them were uncertain about it. In Item 7, more than a half of the participants held uninformed notions of NOS that scientific knowledge comes from experiments only. In this case, only less than one-fifth of the participants held informed ideas that scientific knowledge can be derived from other methods. As of Item 8, more than three-forth of the participants possessed uninformed ideas of NOS that “the accumulation of evidence makes scientific knowledge more stable”. A small number of the participants (11.8%) held informed conceptions about this. The highest percentage of the participants (38%) who being uncertain was appeared in Item 9 “A scientific model (e.g. Atomic model) expresses the copy of reality”. Fifty-nine percent of them held uninformed knowledge, while a few numbers of participants (11.8%) were aware that scientific models do not express the copy of realities. Even though one-third of the participants agreed with Item 10, nearly a half of them held uninformed notions of NOS that scientists do not use creativity and imagination to develop scientific knowledge. Similarly to Item 10, more than three-fifth of the participants held uniformed conceptions of NOS, that is, scientists are open minded and neutral. Only one-fifth of them could come up with informed knowledge about the scientist’s personal ideology. The participants who held uninformed (41.8%) and informed (36.4%) ideas about NOS regarding science and technology are similar. More than one-fifth of the participants were uncertain that whether science and technology are exactly similar. Only one-tenth of the participants had informed notions of NOS that a scientific endeavor is not an individual endeavor. Only few participants (12.7%) asserted that a scientific endeavor is an individual endeavor. Even though more than a half of the participants held informed conception about the relationship between science, society, politics and culture in Item 14, while two-fifth of them held uninformed conception. In the overall, there are two items (i.e. Items 4 and 14) which the participants had informed knowledge of NOS with similar number (52.7%). Item 4 deals with the tentativeness of scientific knowledge while Item 14 deals with the relationship between science, society, politics and culture. There are two items (i.e. Items 3 and 13) in which a few participants (12.7%) had informed knowledge of NOS. Item 3 addresses the hierarchically superiority of scientific laws on scientific theories and Item 13 stands for scientific endeavors. The uninformed responses of these two items are also very similar. In the other two items (i.e. Items 8 and 9), in similar to Items 3 and 13, there is a small number of participants (11.8%) who had informed conceptions. In Item 8, most of the participants believed that accumulation of evidence makes scientific knowledge more stable and in Item 9, around a half of the participants held uninformed conceptions that a scientific model express the copy of reality. From Table 1, in Items 2 and 5, the same number of participants (71.8%) held uninformed conceptions which indicated that the participants believed that scientific theories are less secured than scientific law and the scientific method is a specific thorough (step-by-step) process. These are the second highest uninformed conceptions of NOS. The top three of each responses were: Uninformed (Items 8, 5, and 2), Uncertain (Items 9, 6, and 12), and Informed (Items 4, 14, and 6).


Phase II: Science Teachers’ Development of Conceptions of NOS after Participating in the Workshop. The overall findings about the participants’ conceptions of NOS are presented as Table 2. Table 2: Science teachers’ development of conceptions of NOS after participating the workshop Item

Item 1: Hypotheses are developed to become theories only Item 2: Scientific theories are less secured than scientific law Item 3: Scientific theories can be developed to scientific law Item 4: Scientific knowledge cannot be changed Item 5: Scientific method is a specific thorough (stepby step) process Item 6: Science and scientific method can answer all questions Item 7: Scientific knowledge comes from experiments only Item 8: Accumulation of evidence makes scientific knowledge more stable Item 9: A scientific model (e.g. Atomic model) expresses the copy of reality Item10: Scientists don't use creativity and imagination to develop scientific knowledge Item11: Scientists are open minded and neutral Item12: Science and technology are exactly similar Item13: Scientific endeavor is an individual endeavor Item14: Society, politics and culture don't influence on scientific development

Pre-response

Post-response

Agree 8 (50%)

Uncertain 3 (18.8%)

Disagree 5 (31.3%)

Agree 0 (0%)

Uncertain 0 (0%)

Disagree 16 (100%)

12 (75%)

4 (25%)

0 (0%)

1 (6%)

0 (0%)

15 (94%)

13 (81.5%)

1 (6%)

2 (12.5%)

2 (12.5%)

0 (0%)

14 (87.5%)

4 (25%)

2 (12.5%)

10 (62.5%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

16 (100%)

12 (75%)

3 (18.8%)

1 (6.3%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

16 (100%)

2 (12.5%)

3 (18.3%)

11 (68.8%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

16 (100%)

11 (68.8%)

2 (12.5%)

3 (18.8%)

4 (25%)

0 (0%)

12 (75%)

13 (81.3%)

2 (12.5%)

1 (6.3%)

5 (31.3%)

1 (6.3%)

10 (62.5%)

7 (43.8%)

7 (43.8%)

2 (12.5%)

2 (12.5%)

0 (0%)

14 (87.5%)

6 (37.5%)

3 (18.8%)

7 (43.8%)

3 (18.8%)

0 (0%)

13 (81.3%)

11 (68.8%) 7 (43.8%)

1 (6.3%) 2 (12.5%)

4 (25%) 7 (43.8%)

2 (12.5%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%) 0 (0%)

14 (87.5%) 16 (100%)

13 (81.3%) 4 (25%)

3 (18.8%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%) 12 (75%)

1 (6%) 2 (12.5%)

0 (0%) 0 (0%)

15 (94%) 14 (87.5%)


From Table 2, the overall result showed that the NOS workshop helped the participants developed more informed understanding of NOS in almost all items. In Item 1, at first, only five participants had an informed understanding of NOS about the relationship between scientific hypotheses and theories. After the workshop, all participants could come up with the informed conceptions of NOS. Even though none of participants held informed ideas of NOS about the relationship between scientific theories and laws (Item 2) before the workshop, almost all participants (94%) developed more informed notions of NOS. According to Item 3, at the beginning, two participants showed uninformed conceptions of NOS regarding the hierarchical relationship between scientific theories and laws. By the end of the workshop fourteen participants indicated informed knowledge that scientific theories cannot be developed to scientific laws. About the tentativeness of scientific knowledge in Item 4, the number of participants who expressed informed notions that scientific knowledge is changeable was increased from 10 to 16. In Item 5, only one participant held informed notions about scientific method prior to the workshop. However, all of them could come up with informed ideas after the workshop that scientific method is not a specific step-by-step process. Prior to the workshop, there were 11 participants who held informed ideas that science and scientific method cannot answer all questions. After the workshop, the number of participants who had informed knowledge increased to 16. Only three participants possessed informed conceptions about a variety of ways to come up with scientific knowledge before the workshop; 11 participants stuck with experiment as only one way to come up with scientific knowledge. However, after the workshop, there were 12 participants who could develop informed notions about it. In Item 8, only one participant asserted informed conceptions of NOS about the accumulation of evidence enhancing the stability of scientific knowledge before the workshop. After the workshop, there were 10 participants had informed knowledge of NOS regarding this aspect. Prior to the workshop, only two participants stated that a scientific model is not a copy of reality. Seven participants had misconceptions about that. However, after the workshop, there were 14 participants expressed informed conceptions about the scientific model. Even though seven and six participants respectively held informed and uninformed conception in Item 10 before the workshop, 13 participants came up with informed conceptions of NOS that scientists do use creativity and imagination to develop scientific knowledge. In Item 11, only four participants indicated informed conceptions about the scientist’s personal ideology before the workshop. Fourteen participants stated informed notions about scientists and their subjectivity after the workshop. According to Item 12, the numbers of participants with informed and uninformed ideas about science and technology before the workshop are similar (n = 7). After the workshop the number of participants with uninformed notions was decreased to zero and the number of participants with informed ideas rose up to 16. Deliberately, all participants held informed conception of NOS that science and technology are not exactly similar. None of the participants held informed ideas before the workshop in Item 13. Subsequently, almost all of them (n = 15) stated that a scientific endeavor is not an individual endeavor after the workshop. Many participants (n = 12) had informed notions about the relationship between science, society, politics, and culture at the beginning. The workshop increased the number of participants to 14 at the end of the workshop. In sum, the explicit-reflective NOS workshop helped the participants develop more informed conceptions of NOS especially in Item 6 Scientific Method (from 2 to 16 (+14)), Item 4 Tentative NOS and Item 14 Socio-cultural NOS (from 4 to 14 (+12)), and Item 12 Science and Technology (from 7 to 16 (+9)). The explicit-reflective workshop showed marginal effects on the


participants’ conceptions of NOS in Item 3 Scientific Theories and Laws and Item 7 Scientific Knowledge (increase only one participant), Item 13 Scientific Enterprise (increase two participants), and Item 2 Scientific Theories and Laws and Item 11 Scientists’ Work (increase three participants). However, the explicit-reflective workshop cannot helped the participants develop more informed conceptions of NOS in Item 8 Baconian Induction (from 13 to 10 (-3)). From observation during the workshop, the participants were enthusiastic and eager to learn in the workshop. Before the workshop, they prepared their materials and were ready to learn. At the introduction of the workshop, they started to pay full attention to the presentation. After that, they became more curious as well as cooperatively participated in hands-on tasks. The participants were excited about particular activities. When their prediction or explanation concerning some pictures, figures and models presented to them didn’t line up with their conceptions of NOS, they expressed their curiosity. They were willing to accept alternative notions of NOS. That is, they changed their uninformed conceptions to informed knowledge of NOS. In the middle part of the workshop, two to three participants asked key questions related to NOS. After that, they stated they understood their misconceptions of NOS and adopted the correct ones. Some of the participants look the model in their hands with curious eyes and expressed their thinking and opinions. The participants tried to communicate their ideas and opinions to the other participants. It is a constructive learning environment. The workshop ended up with the participants’ recommendations about the workshop and completion of the postquestionnaire. In addition, from interviews with the participants, they were very interested about the effective and successful workshop. As one participant said: I’ve attended a number of seminars and short training programs during my teaching job over the last seven years and I’ve discovered this workshop program is really the best as I’m able to came up with many new things related to scientific fact within a very short time. The workshop is very useful and interesting so far. (ST006, DBSTC interview) Another participant expressed: It is the third time for me joining this kind of program, Actually I like these as we can learn new things. Today’s program is fantastic as it introduced old things (NOS) in a new way. I feel happy and lucky as I could participate here today. (ST011,DBSTC interview) While answering questions about their feelings regarding the workshop, some of the participants suggested conducting a workshop of this kind in a larger size. They indicated their concern about the other science teachers and want other science teachers to learn and understand NOS. One the interviewees said: If all secondary and higher secondary science teachers could join these kinds of workshop twice or at least ones a year so that, science teachers would be able to get rid of their misconceptions and learn about new innovations and discoveries. (ST003,DBSTC interview) Some of the participants attributed the reason for their misconceptions about NOS to the traditional methods of teaching and learning science (e.g. chalk-and-talk) in the classroom practice, though they themselves follow such a tradition:


Actually students learn from their teacher and mostly in the classroom, and so did we. We are conveying information to our students, in old styled classrooms, in the same manner our teachers did. (ST011,DBSTC interview) (ST003, DBSTC interview) The participants replied to the question of how to improve understanding of NOS by stating that science teachers must emphasize more interactive teaching and learning methods than traditional one. As Mr. said: You can easily recognize the changes and total improvement of my perceptions regarding NOS form the workshop if you compare my pre and post questionnaire paper. I really like the modern interactive method better than the traditional one and it (interactive) always works better. (ST011,DBSTC interview) According to two interviewee, among all of the activities (Tricky Tracks, Young or Old, and Black Box), the Black Box activity was more dynamic and explanative regarding NOS as it shows that science is not absolute; it can be changed depending on empirical evidence. In addition, scientists are subjective in developing scientific knowledge. Moreover, they added that one activity can clarify more than one aspect of NOS: Making a model of a black box helps make it easier for someone to understand science by telling you that you must collect data from your observation to reach a certain conclusion and different people can have similar, but different outcomes based on their knowledge. (ST006,DBSTC interview) (ST005,DBSTC interview) Though the participants were really appreciated the workshop, they suggested the way to improve the NOS workshop by adding more interactive activities in the workshop. If you ask me for suggestions, then I should tell that the workshop itself is excellent already, but we could be ready for it and should give more time for it so that you might have more time to show and explain more things to us. After all I’ve learnt many things today that I knew in another way, so I appreciate and wish you good luck. (ST005, DBSTC interview) Finally, the participants pointed out the effectiveness and importance of the workshop in helping the participants develop more informed knowledge of NOS. If you can go to all of the schools and do this workshop then I think the science teachers will benefit (ST006, DBSTC interview). It might be easier for all the teachers to get together in some central place than going to them one by one and explain them this way will be more beneficial and fruitful for changing wrong perceptions about science and you might get better result. (ST011, DBSTC interview)

Discussion Science Teachers’ Conceptions of NOS This study revealed that Bangladeshi science teachers’ conceptions of NOS are very similar to other science teachers around the world especially in Southeast Asia, such as Thailand (Bell et


al., 2000; 2009; Dogan & Abd-El-Khalick, 2008; Haider, 1999; Sarkar, 2010; Shiang et al., 2007).The reason might be learning methods, classroom practices, textbooks, curricula (Buaraphan, 2010), the educational system(Haider, 1999) as well culture (Dogan & Abd-ElKhalick, 2008) are almost similar in determining the NOS learning level. The Bangladeshi science teachers who participated in this study possessed many common uninformed notions of NOS as follows. Most of them have misconceptions and a big number of the teachers retained ‘uncertain’ ideas of hypotheses theory and the law relationships aspect, thinking that “laws are mature theory fables” (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 1998). And hypotheses are the pre-step of theory. The fact of these misconceptions is that: the terms are not adequately clear to them so that they can’t differentiate the differences among these. In fact, laws are the statement of observable phenomenon where the theories are the generalized description of those phenomena. Even though theories and laws are identically different in science and have different roles as well, the participants cannot realize that. They believe that theories are experimentally proven knowledge and laws are proven theories having greatest number of evidences and supports moreover. Moreover, laws are more likely unchanged. These conceptions lead them to build up the idea of universal step-wise scientific method (Dogan & Abd-El-Khalick, 2008; Haider, 1999), and accumulation of supportive evidences making theories become law (Bell et al., 2000; McComas, 1998). That is, hypotheses are developed to become theory only, scientific theories are less secured than scientific laws, and scientific theories can be developed to scientific laws. It is very much consistent with other related study conducted on science teachers both in pre-service (Buaraphan, 2010, 2011) and in-service in the context of Asia Pacific (Buaraphan& Sung-ong, 2009; Sarkar, 2010) as well as around the world (Dogan & Abd-El-Khalick, 2008; Haider, 1999). Many participants believe that scientific knowledge is tentative (Bell et al., 2000; Buaraphan, 2010) and is accumulated with the successive addition of previous knowledge (Buaraphan, 2010; McComas, 1998; Haider, 1999). This alternative concept of NOS points out that the participants hold the idea of “laws are mature theory fables”. More than half of the participants hold uninformed concepts about scientific models like some others related research study as Buraphan (2011) where the supporter participants think that scientific models are a copy of reality not a human invention as the models are made from the real-time observation and experiments. On the other hand, a number of them are also uncertain about it and raised the idea that it might be from the scientist’s experience and creative thinking as well as from real life. (Bell et al., 2000; Haider, 1999) Similarly to other NOS studies, the participants held mixed ideas of NOS. Less than a half of them have the correct idea about NOS, but others have uninformed conceptions of NOS and are uncertain about the ability of science and the scientific method to answer all questions. Some participants believe that “a scientific method is a specific, thorough (step-by step) process” and scientists should follow an organized process. Science may not able to handle some exceptions. Science is based on evidence coming from observations and experiments, but there are some phenomena which are beyond proof. So, obviously, science cannot answer all questions. This study revealed similar finding as some previous research like Buraphan (2010; 2011), Haider (1999), Murcia and Schibeci (1999) who attributed these to the textbooks taught in schools as well as the practical experiments the students do as their supplementary course work. Dogan and Abd-El-Khalick (2008) argued that this thinking might originate from the cultural background of the participants. Different pictures emerged here about scientists’ role in science. One of important reasons behind this might be the traditional learning method of science and lack of knowledge about the scientists (Dogan & Abd-El-Khalick, 2008). Many Bangladeshi science teachers have incorrect notions that scientists rarely use their creativity and imagination. Their activities are based on experiments and evidence, so they have little room to use their own thinking. With this idea, the participants added that scientists are mostly open-minded and unbiased because these are the important criteria of good scientists (Buaraphan, 2010).


To some of them, science and technology are interrelated and dependent on each other. Science is ‘theoretical’ and technology is ‘practical’. In other words, technology is applied science (Buaraphan & Sung-ong, 2009). This erroneous conception is also found in other studies, such as Buaraphan and Sung-ong (2009), and Tairab (2001). The participants cannot differentiate between science and technology (Rubba & Harkness, 1993). Tairab (2001) argued that cultural influences might be responsible for this misconception and suggested that the role of science and technology as well as the interrelationship between science and technology should be clarified. Unlike others studies, the participants in this study highly held uninformed and uncertain concepts that a scientific endeavor is individual endeavor. In reality, there are many factors directly or indirectly influence science. Hence, scientific endeavor is a social endeavor. In the contrary, many participants perceive science as a social entity that has direct and indirect influences on culture and politics (Buaraphan, 2010; Haider, 1999; Tairab, 2001). More than half of the participants held informed conceptions about science and the socio-political-cultural influence on science where a majority of the participants picked out scientific endeavors as an individual endeavor, which means that they are not really clear about “scientific endeavor”, or they think that, every scientific invention starts with the hypotheses and the supportive evidence makes it stronger later on and produces a final piece of work which comes through a long path way where it is influenced by society, politics and culture, hence it should be taken under consideration to eliminate this unclear conception.

Science Teachers’ Development of NOS Conceptions after the Workshop The explicit-reflective NOS workshop conducted in this study, to some extent, helps the participating science teachers develop more informed conceptions of NOS in particular to Item 6 Scientific Method, Item 4 Tentative NOS, Item 14 Socio-cultural NOS, and Item 12 Science and Technology. As mentioned earlier, the ‘Tricky Tracks’ activity may help explain the tentativeness NOS and scientific method, the ‘Young or Old’ activity may help explain the influences of social and cultural contexts on NOS. The participants understand that there is no fixed step-by step process in science. Moreover, they believe that scientific knowledge is changeable as they also believe science and scientific knowledge cannot answer all questions as well as science and technology are not exactly similar. Hence, the explicit-reflective workshop is fruitful and successful enough to change the teachers conceptions of NOS. Some NOS conceptions are resistant to change especially in Items 2 and 3 Scientific Theories and Laws, Item 7 Scientific Knowledge, Item 13 Scientific Enterprise, and Item 11 Scientists’ Work. Surprisingly, the explicit-reflective workshop cannot help the participants develop more informed conceptions of NOS in Item 8 Baconian Induction, i.e., “accumulation of evidence makes scientific knowledge more stable”. The literature shows that the explicitreflective activities (Lederman & Abd-EL-Khalick) employed in the workshop of this study can help improve secondary science teachers’ informed conceptions of NOS. For example: the researcher used the “Tricky Track” for observation vs. inferences , scientists’ creativity, imaginations as well as tentativeness of science aspect of NOS. “Young or Old” activity was used to describe the subjectivity and the influences of social and cultural context on NOS. Black Box activity like “Mysterious Tube” activity used to clarify that scientific knowledge is a part of human imagination, its source, scientific model and hypotheses etc. So, these findings remind us as science educators to be aware of the resistance of some misconceptions of NOS. These misconceptions are deeply rooted in the science teachers’ minds for a long time. Some of the participants cannot change their NOS conceptions as there is an internal conflict between their two decades of being misinformed and the workshop presentation. It is hard to, sometimes, accept the informed NOS conceptions, though they are proven or well explained. For example, a large numbers of the teachers retained ‘uncertain’ conceptions about the ‘hypotheses’ and ‘theory’ relationship aspect where they think that “laws are mature theory fables” (Abd-ElKhalick et al., 1998).


Implications A large number of science teachers possess improper knowledge of NOS as shown in this study. The explicit-reflective NOS workshop conducted in this study may be useful for helping them shift their NOS conceptions to be more informed. Teacher training institutes of Bangladesh can play an important role to prepare pre-service science teachers who possess an adequate understanding of NOS as well as to conduct a workshop like in this study for fostering in-service science teachers’ informed conceptions of NOS.


REFERENCES Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417-436. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665-701. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Lederman, N. G., Bell, R. L., & Schwartc, R. S. (2001). Views of nature of science questionnaire (VNOS): Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Costa Mesa, CA. Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295-317. Akindehin, F. (1988). Effect of an instructional package on pre-service science teachers' understanding of nature of science and acquisition of science-related attitudes. Science Education, 72, 73-82. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press. Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students "ideas-about-science": Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88, 655-682. Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and acting upon one's conception of the nature of science: a follow-up study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 563-581. Billeh, V. Y., & Hassan, O. E. (1975). Factors affecting teachers gain in understanding the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12, 67-71. Buaraphan, K. (2009). Preservice and inservice science teachers' responses and reasoning about the nature of science. Educational Research and Review 4(11), 561-581. Buaraphan, K. (2010). Pre-service and in-service science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science. Science Educator, 19(2), 35-47. Buaraphan, K. (2011). Pre-service physics teachers' conceptions of nature of science. US-China Education Review, 8(2), 137-148. Buaraphan, K., & Sung-ong, S. (2009).Thai pre-service science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science.Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 10(1),1-22 Cakiroglu, J., Dogan, N., Bilican, K., Cavus, S., & Arslan, O. (2009). Influence of in-service teacher education program on science teachers' views of nature of science. International Journal of Learning, 16(10), 597-605. Craven, J. A., Hand, B., & Prain, V. (2002).Assessing explicit and tacit conceptions of the nature of science among preservice elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 785-802. Dogan, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008). Turkish grade 10 students' and science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: a national study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1083-1112. Driver, R., Leach, J., Miller, A., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people images of science. Pennsylvania: Open University Press. Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Prospective and practicing secondary school science teachers' knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science. Science and Education, 75(1), 121-133. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967).The discovery of ground theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine. Haider, A. (1999). Emirates pre-service and in-service teachers' views about the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(8), 807-822.


Hanuscin, D. L., Lee, M. H., & Akerson, V. L. (2010). Elementary teachers' pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science. Science Education, doi: 10.1002/sce.20404 Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2007).The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347-1362. Irez, S., & Cakir, M. (2006). Critical reflective approach to teach the nature of science: a rationale and review of strategies. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 3(2), 7-23. Trumbull, D., Scarano, G., & Bonney, R. (2006).Relations among two teachers' practices and beliefs, conceptualizations of the nature of science, and their implementation of student independent inquiry projects. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 17171750. Kuchuk, M. (2008).Improving pre-service elementary teachers' view of the nature of science using explicit-reflective teaching in a science, technology and society course. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2).16-40 Lederman, J. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2004).Early elementary students' and teacher's understandings of nature of science and scientific inquiry: lessons learned from project ICAN. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver, British Columbia, April, 2004 Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers' understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 916-929. Lederman, N. G., Schwartz, R., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Bell, R. L. (2001). Pre-service teachers' understanding and teaching nature of science: An intervention study. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 1, 135-160. Lederman, N., &Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understanding of the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and strategies. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. McComas, W. F., Almazroa, H., & Clough, M. P. (1998). The nature of science in science education: An introduction. Science & Education, 7, 511-532. McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., &Almazroa, H. (1998).The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Miah, M. B. (2001). Current Situations of Basic Education of Bangladesh, Publisher: Mymensingh. Michael, P. (2006). Teaching the nature of science to secondary and post-secondary students: questions rather than tenets. Iowa State University, LA. Moss, D. M. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the nature of science.International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 771-790. Murcia, K., & Schibeci, S. (1999). Primary student teachers' conceptions of the nature of science.International Journal of Science Education, 21(11), 1123-1140. National Curriculum and Textbook Board. (1995). Curriculum and syllabus: Junior and Secondary Levels (grades 6-8) [in Bengali]. Dhaka: Ministry of Education, Government of Bangladesh. National Research Council.(1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Nichols, S. E., Tippins, D., & Wieseman, K. (1997).A toolkit for developing critically reflective science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(2), 77-106. National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (2003). Standards for Science Teacher Preparation. Washington, DC: NSTA.


Palmquist, B. C., & Finley, F. N. (1997).Pre-service teachers' views of the nature of science during a post-baccalaureate science teaching program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(6), 595-615. Rubba, P. A., & Harkness, W. L. (1993). Examination of pre-service and in-service secondary science teachers' beliefs about science-technology-society interactions. Science Education, 77(4), 407-431. Sarkar, M. M. A. (2010). Science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: The case of Bangladesh. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 1-17. Schwartz, R., & Lederman, N. (2002). "It's the nature of the beast": The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 205-236. Shiang, Lederman, & Norman. (2007). Exploring prospective teachers' worldviews and conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(10), 1281-1307. Tairab, H. H. (2001). How do pre-service and in-service science teachers view the nature of science and technology? Research in Science and Technological Education, 19(2), 235250. Tao, P. K. (2003). Eliciting and developing junior secondary students' understanding of the nature of science through a peer collaboration instruction in science stories. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 147-171.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Ziaul Abedin Forhad: I am a Ph.D. student majoring in science and technology education at the Institute for Innovative Learning, Mahidol University, Thailand. My areas of interest are the nature of science (NOS) and science teacher professional development. Asst. Prof. Khajornsak Buaraphan: I graduated a PhD degree in science education from Kasetsart University, Thailand. I am now an assistant professor at the Institute for Innovative Learning, Mahidol University, Thailand. I teach many courses such as research in science and technology education, teaching science, and nature and philosophy of science and technology. I am now interested in NOS, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), and integrated science curriculum.

The International Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Learning is one of ten thematically focused journals in the family of journals that support The Learner knowledge community—its journals, book series, conference and online community. It is a section of The International Journal of Learning. The journal offers studies of best practices in teaching and learning science, mathematics and technology. As well as papers of a traditional scholarly type, this journal invites presentations of practice—including documentation of curricular practices and exegeses of the effects of those practices. The International Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Learning is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.

ISSN 2327-7971